Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 17th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The drawing objection is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections over Richter et al. in regards to claim 6 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s persuasive arguments.
All other rejections over Richter et al. were maintained.
New rejections follow.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged for provisional application 63/599,007. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows: provisional application 63/490,112 does not support the claim limitations in claim 6, 21, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112 due to limitations regarding overmolded deformable material on the reinforcing structure. Therefore, the effective filing date of the instant application is considered November 15th, 2023.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 17th, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richter et al. (US 2025/0141394 A1).
In view of Claim 21, Richter et al. discloses an apparatus (Fig. 15 & Paragraph 0273) comprising:
a solar panel configured to be hung (Fig. 15, #100 & Paragraph 0273);
wherein the solar panel comprises a reinforcing structure (Figs. 4 & 15, #141/#151) under tensile forces with a deformable material (Figs. 1 & 15, #120 & #130 – Paragraph 0230).
In regards to the limitation, “a reinforcing structure overmolded under tensile forces with a deformable material”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the word "overmolded". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
In view of Claim 22, Richter et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. Richter et al. discloses that the reinforcing structure comprises a plurality of wires and the plurality of wires are substantially parallel (Fig. 15, #141/#151).
In view of Claim 23, Richter et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. Richter et al. discloses that the reinforcing structure extends beyond the deformable material (Fig. 15, #141 extends beyond the structure to connect to 310/312).
In view of Claim 24, Richter et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. Richter et al. teaches forming one or more holes at selected locations wherein the one or more holes are associated with wind management (Fig. 1, #100 & Paragraph 0236)
In view of Claim 25, Richter et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. Richter et al. teaches the solar panel further comprises one or more frames (Figs. 4 & 15, #170 – Paragraph 0244) associated with attaching the solar panel to a support structure, and that the support structure comprises at least two anchoring poles (Fig. 15, #320/#321 – Paragraph 0265).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter et al. (US 2025/0141394 A1) in view of Voelkner (DE-202012006790-U1). Voelkner is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 6, Richter et al. teaches a method (Fig. 15 & Paragraph 0273) comprising:
placing a deformable material (Figs. 1 & 15, #120 & #130 – Paragraph 0230 - & Abstract – made of plastic material) on a reinforcing structure (Figs. 4 & 15, #141/#151);
exerting tensile forces to the reinforcing structure (Figs. 15 & 22, #141 & Paragraph 0231 – “mechanical fastening the solar module 100 to a bearing structure 300” & Paragraph 0271 – the solar modules 100 hang with their respective contacting portions 141 from one rope 312 and their negative contacting portions 151 from the other rope 312);
forming a solar panel that is configured to be hung (Fig. 15, #100 & Paragraph 0273).
Richter et al. does not explicitly teach that the deformable material that is on the reinforcing structure is overmolded.
Voelkner discloses that deformable material (Fig. 2, #70) may be formed such that conductive wires are formed between the two layers of deformable material (Fig. 2, #40 – Paragraph 0045 & 0047). Voelkner discloses overmolding the deformable material onto the conductive wires (Fig. 6 – Paragraph 0032-0033 & 0055). Voelkner discloses that this method of encapsulation can prevent or eliminate air inclusion among solar cells or polyurethane for practical volume calling mass production (Paragraph 0016). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the deformable material that is on the reinforcing structure of Richter et al. be overmolded for the advantages of eliminating air inclusions among the solar cells.
In view of Claim 7, Richter et al. and Voelkner are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Richter et al. discloses that the reinforcing structure comprises a plurality of wires and the plurality of wires are substantially parallel (Fig. 15, #141/#151).
In view of Claim 8, Richter et al. and Voelkner are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Richter et al. discloses that the reinforcing structure extends beyond the deformable material (Fig. 15, #141 extends beyond the structure to connect to 310/312).
In view of Claim 9, Richter et al. and Voelkner are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Richter et al. teaches forming one or more holes at selected locations wherein the one or more holes are associated with wind management (Fig. 1, #100 & Paragraph 0236)
In view of Claim 10, Richter et al. and Voelkner are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Richter et al. teaches mounting one or more frames at selected locations in the solar panel wherein the at least one frame of the one or more frames is associated with attached the solar panel a hanging structure (Figs. 4 & 15, #170 – Paragraph 0244).
In view of Claim 11, Richter et al. and Voelkner are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Richter et al. discloses that the entire module in itself is flexible (Fig. 22), it is the Examiner’s position that the solar panel would be able to flex at joints between cells (Fig. 1, #110) and wind holes (Fig. 1, #180).
In view of Claim 12, Richter et al. and Voelkner are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Richter et al. discloses that the solar panel is flexible (Fig. 22, its formed off a roll e.g., the elongated core), wherein the method of forming the solar panel comprises it being rolled around an elongated core before its hung (Paragraph 0293).
Claims 13-14, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter et al. (US 2025/0141394 A1) in view of Voelkner (DE-202012006790-U1) in view of Renaud-Byrne et al. (US 2024/0388245 A1). Voelkner is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 13, Richter et al. and Voelkner are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Richter et al. discloses that the solar panel is flexible (Fig. 22, its formed off a roll e.g., the elongated core), wherein the method of forming the solar panel comprises it being rolled around an elongated core before its hung (Paragraph 0293) and that the elongated core is hollow (Fig. 22, #1602) but does not disclose a hanging structure through the elongated core.
Renaud-Byrne et al. discloses an elongated hollow core (Fig. 2) further comprises passing a hanging structure through the elongated core (Fig. 5B, the flexible modular solar panel is essentially spooled via a hollow core – Paragraph 0036). Renaud-Byrne et al. discloses that this configuration allows the modularity of flexible modular solar panel depending on the size of the application and readily deployed on site at a fraction of the time required to achieve the same for a traditional hard structured solar panel (Paragraph 0026). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a hanging structure through the elongated core as disclosed by Renaud-Byrne et al. using Richter’s rollable photovoltaic for the advantage of having a deployment configuration that allows the modularity of flexible modular solar panel depending on the size of the application and readily deployed on site at a fraction of the time required to achieve the same for a traditional hard structured solar panel.
In view of Claim 14, Richter et al. and Voelkner are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Richter et al. discloses that the solar panel is flexible (Fig. 22, its formed off a roll e.g., the elongated core), wherein the method of forming the solar panel comprises it being rolled around an elongated core before its hung (Paragraph 0293) and that the elongated core is hollow (Fig. 22, #1602) but does not disclose the elongated core is used as a hanging structure for the solar panel based on the solar panel being unrolled.
Renaud-Byrne et al. discloses an elongated hollow core (Fig. 2) is configured to be used as hanging structure for the solar panel based on the solar panel being unrolled (Fig. 5B, the flexible modular solar panel is essentially spooled via a hollow core – Paragraph 0036). Renaud-Byrne et al. discloses that this configuration allows the modularity of flexible modular solar panel depending on the size of the application and readily deployed on site at a fraction of the time required to achieve the same for a traditional hard structured solar panel (Paragraph 0026). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the elongated core is used as a hanging structure for the solar panel based on the solar panel being unrolled as disclosed by Renaud-Byrne et al. using Richter’s rollable photovoltaic for the advantage of having a deployment configuration that allows the modularity of flexible modular solar panel depending on the size of the application and readily deployed on site at a fraction of the time required to achieve the same for a traditional hard structured solar panel.
In view of Claim 26, Richter et al. discloses an apparatus (Fig. 22 & Paragraph 0293) comprising:
a solar panel configured to be hung (Fig. 22, #100 & Paragraph 0293);
wherein the solar panel comprises a reinforcing structure (Figs. 4 & 22 #141/#151) overmolded under tensile forces with a deformable material (Fig. 1, #120 & #130 – Paragraph 0230).
Richter et al. does not disclose one or more frames associated with attaching the solar panel to a support structure wherein the support structure comprises at least two anchoring poles, wherein the solar panel is configured to be held in a packaging that is configured to guide the solar panel to the support structure.
Renaud-Byrne et al. discloses one or more frames associated with attaching a solar panel to a support structure wherein the support structure comprises at least two anchoring poles, wherein the solar panel is configured to be held in a packaging that is configured to guide the solar panel to the support structure (See Annotated Renaud-Byrne et al. Fig. 5B, below). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the one or more frames associated with attaching the solar panel to a support structure wherein the support structure comprises at least two anchoring poles, wherein the solar panel is configured to be held in a packaging that is configured to guide the solar panel to the support structure as disclosed by Renaud-Byrne et al. using Richter’s rollable photovoltaic for the advantage of having a deployment configuration that allows the modularity of flexible modular solar panel depending on the size of the application and readily deployed on site at a fraction of the time required to achieve the same for a traditional hard structured solar panel.
Annotated Renaud-Byrne et al. Fig. 5B
PNG
media_image1.png
539
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter et al. (US 2025/0141394 A1) in view of Conger (US 2008/0283112 A1).
In view of Claim 27, Richter et al. discloses a system (Fig. 15) comprising:
an array of vertical solar panels comprising a first row of vertical solar panels (Fig. 15, #100 & Paragraph 0273);
wherein the first row of vertical solar panels comprise a plurality of vertically installed solar panels (Fig. 15, #100 & Paragraph 0273);
wherein the solar panel comprises a reinforcing structure (Figs. 4 & 22 #141/#151) under tensile forces with a deformable material (Fig. 1, #120 & #130 – Paragraph 0230).
In regards to the limitation, “a reinforcing structure overmolded under tensile forces with a deformable material”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the word "overmolded". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Richter et al. does not disclose that the configuration is an array that comprises an additional second row of vertical solar panels.
Conger discloses that an array can have multiple rows (Fig. 23) and that solar arrays with multiple rows can be used to provide optimal area coverage and shade for a parking lot. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an additional second row of vertical panels in Richter et al. system for the advantage of providing a shaded parking lot.
Claim 28 & 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter et al. (US 2025/0141394 A1) in view of Conger (US 2008/0283112 A1) in view of Renaud-Byrne et al. (US 2024/0388245 A1).
In view of Claims 28 & 31, Richter et al. and Conger are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 27. Richter et al. does not disclose an optimizer configured to determine power generated by the vertical solar panels.
Renaud-Byrne et al. discloses that solar panel optimizers improve the overall efficiency of a system by overcoming deficiencies caused by shading, different panel orientations, and uneven degradation, wherein they permit each solar panel to operate independently (Paragraph 0019). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have an optimizer in Richter et al. system configured to determine power generated by the vertical solar panels for the advantages of improving the overall efficiency of a system by overcoming deficiencies caused by shading, different panel orientations, and uneven degradation, wherein they permit each solar panel to operate independently.
Claim 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter et al. (US 2025/0141394 A1) in view of Conger (US 2008/0283112 A1) in view of Renaud-Byrne et al. (US 2024/0388245 A1) in view of Overturf et al. (US 2025/0070710 A1).
In view of Claims 29-30, Richter et al., Conger, and Renaud-Byrne et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 28. Richter et al. does not disclose that the system comprises a controller; a drive unit; a drive source; and a power source, wherein the controller is configured to adjust a height of the first row of vertical solar panels relative to the second row of vertical solar panels via the power source, the drive source, and the drive unit, based on a trigger event from one or more measurement devices.
Conger discloses that inter-row shading can be a trigger for when solar panels should have their height adjusted because the height of the sun in the sky may vary sufficiently to affect the efficiency of the solar panels via a mechanism (Paragraph 0059). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a mechanism in modified Richter et al. system based on inter-row shading in an array for adjusting the height of the first and second row of vertical solar panels for the advantages of maximizing the efficiency of the solar panels via this mechanism.
Modified Richter et al. does not disclose that this mechanism includes a controller, drive unit, drive source, or power source.
Overturf et al. discloses a mechanism that can adjust height includes a controller, drive unit, drive source and a power source to hereby effect the exposure of a system (Table 1, #203, #206, #230 – Paragraph 0020) and advantageously maximizes solar power outputs (Paragraph 0002). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the mechanism of Overturf et al. that includes a controller, a drive unit, drive source, and a power source as disclosed by Overturf et al. in modified Richter et al. system for the advantage of effecting the exposure of the system to maximize solar power outputs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Richter does not disclose that elements 141 and 151 are a “reinforcing structure” as recited by claim 6, and are not structural reinforcing elements embedded in/within the solar panel, for example, to reinforce a deformable material against gravitational loads and deformation. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that claim 6 require the following limitations, in no particular order, “exerting tensile forces to a reinforcing structure”, and “overmolding a deformable material on the reinforcing structure”. In the instant case, Richter discloses elements 141 and 151 are suspended to wire 310/312, and also attached to solar panels 100 (Paragraph 0231), thus a tensile force is present exerting from the reinforcing structures 141 and 151 to the solar panels 100. Additionally, there is no limitation in claims 6 or 21 that require the reinforcing structure to be embedded within the solar panel, or that its specifically reinforcing a deformable material against gravitational loads and deformation. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
In regards to Claim 21, Applicant argues that the limitation “a reinforcing structure overmolded under tensile forces with a deformable material” is not taught by Richter. In regards to the limitation, “a reinforcing structure overmolded under tensile forces with a deformable material”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the word "overmolded". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113). Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Richter does not disclose applying tensile forces to any structure during the manufacturing process. Its respectfully pointed out to Applicant that claim 6 require the following limitations, in no particular order, “exerting tensile forces to a reinforcing structure”, and “overmolding a deformable material on the reinforcing structure” Richter discloses elements 141 and 151 are suspended to wire 310/312, and also attached to solar panels 100 (Paragraph 0231), thus a tensile forces is exerting to the reinforcing structures 141 and 151. Claim 6 doesn’t require the exerting of the tensile forces to happen a specific instance during the method claim. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Richter does not disclose the recitation in claim 11, “forming one or more flexible joints at selected locations in the solar panel”. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Richter et al. discloses that the entire module in itself is flexible (Fig. 22), it is the Examiner’s position that the solar panel would be able to flex at joints between cells (Fig. 1, #110) and wind holes (Fig. 1, #180). The formation of the wind holes satisfies the limitation “forming one or more flexible joints at selected locations in the solar panel”.
Applicant argues that in regards to claims 13-14, Renaud-Byrne does not disclose “wherein the elongated core is hollow, and the method further comprises passing a hanging structure through the elongated core” or “wherein the elongated core is configured to be used as a hanging structure for the solar panel, based on the solar panel being unrolled”. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Renaud-Byrne et al. discloses an elongated hollow core (Fig. 2) further comprises passing a hanging structure through the elongated core (Fig. 5B, the flexible modular solar panel is essentially spooled via a hollow core – Paragraph 0036). Renaud-Byrne et al. discloses that this configuration allows the modularity of flexible modular solar panel depending on the size of the application and readily deployed on site at a fraction of the time required to achieve the same for a traditional hard structured solar panel (Paragraph 0026). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that in regards to claims 29-30, Conger does not disclose additional features as recited by claims 29 or 30 but makes no mention of what those missing features might be. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights